Impact of implant scan body material and angulation on the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions using four intraoral scanners–an in vitro study

Abstract

Background: Intraoral scanners (IOS) offer advantages in implant dentistry, but accuracy depends on factors including implant scan body (ISB) material and implant angulation. Conflicting evidence exists on the performance of Titanium (Ti) versus PEEK ISBs, especially with angulated implants. This study aimed to evaluate the combined effect of ISB material (PEEK vs. Ti) and implant angulation (0° vs. 30°) on the trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained from four different IOSs.

Methods: A 3D-printed edentulous maxillary model with four implants (two parallel 0°, two angled 30°). Four ISB configurations (Ti 0°, Ti 30°, PEEK 0°, PEEK 30°) were screwed to the implants and scanned (n = 10 per group) using four IOSs: Primescan, Trios 3, Aoralscan 3, and Fussen S6000. A high-resolution desktop scanner provided the reference. Trueness (RMS error vs. reference model) and precision (RMS error from intra-group comparisons) were calculated using Geomagic software. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).

Results: ISB configuration significantly affected trueness (P < 0.001) and precision (P < 0.001). PEEK ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision than Ti ISBs (P < 0.001). PEEK 30° showed the highest trueness, while PEEK 0° showed the highest precision. Angulation did not significantly affect trueness for Ti ISBs. IOS type significantly influenced trueness and precision across all ISB configurations (P < 0.001). Primescan and Trios 3 generally exhibited higher trueness and precision compared to Aoralscan 3 and Fussen S6000 (specific pairwise differences varied by condition, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Both ISB material and implant angulation significantly influence the trueness and precision of full-arch digital implant impressions. PEEK ISBs consistently outperformed Titanium ISBs. Choice of IOS is also critical, with significant performance differences observed among the tested IOSs. Clinicians should consider these interactions when selecting materials and IOSs for optimal accuracy.

Keywords: Dental